It’s becoming a recurring theme. Yet another Qualicum Beach property owner is asking for major variances to accommodate a destruction / construction project, this time at 217 / 221 Higson Crescent on the waterfront near the property that the Town recently purchased for use as a park.
Town Planner Luke Sales is recommending that Council approve the required multiple permits at the Council meeting scheduled for May 13, 2020, including apparently allowing the property homeowner to construct a breakwater of undetermined specifications.
Many of the applicant’s neighbours do not support the project which they fear will set a precedent that will allow the Town to ignore the Official Community Plan (OCP), regulations and bylaws at will. With little apparent regard for the impact of applications for variances, the Town and Council may be allowing a Vancouver style blight of so-called “monster homes” to unfavourably alter the valuable character of Qualicum Beach.
Second Opinion QB was alerted to this issue by a Letter to the Editor from readers Faith and David Robertson who also point out the abandoned decaying construction mess at 263 Buller Road, just a block away, also along the waterfront “that had 4 stop work orders and a tear down order. Despite the Town having won a law suit against this owner / builder we have been living with a garbage dump of used building materials and garbage for five years, as the Town refuses to get on with cleaning up the site which is a sensitive waterfront lot.”
At the end of Buller Road, just one block off the Island Highway at Fish Tales restaurant, is a Town bench situated to take in the ocean view. The predominant view however, is of a shocking industrial blight of abandoned construction containers, a half finished concrete building foundation, what appears to be a makeshift outhouse, decayed building materials and assorted trash.
Other people have submitted letters to Sales and / or Mayor Wiese and Council raising concerns about the actions proposed in the Higson Crescent application and the Town’s ability to manage the after-effects and ramifications, including:
- “I understand that this project would require approval by provincial and federal governments and that the application may well stall out at that point.”
- “There are neighbours here on Higson and on Buller who have created their own projects over the years. All of the neighbours (with the exception of 263 Buller Road) have scrupulously followed the rules.”
- “This structure is out of keeping with the character of the neighbourhood, and will be particularly oppressive in my case, as I will be living in the gloom created by having the 11.4 metre high side of the house running down the length of my [adjacent] lot.”
- “A major worry is that in addition to damaging the foreshore, the breakwater may direct waves and water away from 217 [Higson] and towards neighbouring properties, causing erosion and other damage.”
- “These changes have no engineering or environmental purpose that we can discern; they just seem to be based on the aesthetic indulgences of the owners.”
- “The beach and waterfront is Qualicum’s most precious resource. It defines our town. I do not believe that any construction that effects change to the beach and waterfront should ever be considered on a case by case basis to accommodate a single property owner.”
For any readers who want to see the project details, as well as the Town planner’s rationalization for approving the project as currently proposed, see pages 98 – 118 of the May 13, 2020 Council agenda. Included with the May 13, 2020 Council agenda are written communications received before Sales’ report to Council was prepared (date not specified on his report).
According to Luke Sales:
- “A Development Variance Permit is required because the proposed single family dwelling for 217 Higson Crescent does not meet the minimum setback from the natural boundary and exceeds the maximum allowable height.;
- A Development Permit is also required for 217 Higson Crescent and 221 Higson Crescent because the applicant is proposing to undertake work on the foreshore. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing sea wall and implement a green shores approach.”
According to the applicant’s neighbours:
Danger of setting precedents in that neighbourhood – height variance:
- “I am aware of the rejection of a height variance that was requested for the waterfront property at 261 Buller [Road}. And I also understand that a height variance request was rejected when the property at 263 Buller was constructed. The height requirements under the RD zoning are intended to preserve the character of the residential neighbourhood and, to date, all properties currently comply with these regulations.”
- “I am very concerned about the potential ramifications for the partially dismantled property at 261 (263?) Buller Road. This property has been an ongoing problem for the neighbourhood. The derelict state of the property and the construction debris continues to be an issue for all the surrounding residents. If the variance is granted for 217 Higson Crescent, surely this will establish a precedent for possible reconstruction on the Buller Road property, and for any other potential construction in our neighbourhood. I want the character of the neighbourhood preserved and protected by the current zoning requirements.”
- “There are neighbours here on Higson and on Buller who have created their own projects over the years. All of the neighbours (with the exception of 263 Buller Road) have scrupulously followed the rules. Where they were just a little outside requirements, [they] were made to make changes that despite being small were costly. We don’t understand or have sympathy for the sense of entitlement that makes some think the rules shouldn’t be applied to their situation.”
- “The height variance applied for is 11.4 metres, which would tower over all the other buildings in the neighbourhood. To put this resulting height in perspective, the height variance applied for by the Sand Pebbles Inn in 2017 was 12.5 metres. The Sand Pebbles Inn plan is for a 3 storey hotel. The 217 Higson residence is a 2 storey home. The height variance difference between the hotel plan and this residence plan is only 1.1. metres. The height variance applied for not only accommodates the raised ground level, it allows for tall architectural roof peaks. The dwellings on Higson are one or two storey homes but all fall within the 9 meter height restrictions.”
- “If the [height] variance is granted, the house will stand some 2.4 metres (or 7 feet, 9 ½ inches) higher than any other building in the neighbourhood. This structure is out of keeping with the character of the neighbourhood, and will be particularly oppressive in my case, as I will be living in the gloom created by having the 11.4 metre high side of the house running down the length of my [adjacent] lot.”
- “The size of the proposed dwelling at 217 Higson Crescent is much too large for the size of the lot, especially since the required Flood Control Levels would apply. I would recommend that the height of waterfront dwellings be reduced in size to accommodate the size of the lot as well as fitting into the immediate community.”
Danger of setting precedents in that neighbourhood – setback from the ocean:
- “I object to the [requested] changes to the setback for the waterfront property. The setbacks were established to protect and maintain the natural waterfront / shoreline boundaries. All residential homes constructed to date along the waterfront have conformed to the applicable established zone requirement. I am firmly of the opinion that it is the responsibility of the owner to be aware of these requirements and to plan any new construction within these parameters.”
- “The town bylaw 580.108, 2019 sets the waterfront setback at 15 metres. The provincial government’s Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management Guidelines, sections 3.5 and 3.6 [amended in 2018], section 3.5.5.1 Standard FCLs and Setbacks: “The building setback should be at least the greater of 15 metres from the future estimated Natural Boundary of the sea at Year 2100, [or landward of the location where the natural ground elevation contour is equivalent to the Year 2100 FCL].”; section 3.5.5.3 Development on Existing Lots: “Standard setbacks and elevations apply,”; and, “the Engineering Report from Northwest Hydraulic Consultants recommends 15 metres as the waterfront setback.”
- “It is presumed that all of these agencies have valid reasons for the 15 metre distance. Therefore, the request for a waterfront variance should be denied and the 15 metre setback should be adhered to.”
- “We feel that this [height and setback variances] will set a precedent for other construction to be carried out in our neighbourhood. What right will the Town of Qualicum Beach have to refuse changes to other building projects when the changes are so significant at 217 Higson? These changes have no engineering or environmental purpose that we can discern; they just seem to be based on the aesthetic indulgences of the owners.”
Shared stewardship of the waterfront:
- “The beach and waterfront is Qualicum’s most precious resource. It defines our town. I do not believe that any construction that effects change to the beach and waterfront should ever be considered on a case by case basis to accommodate a single property owner. It should only be carried out within the confines of the waterfront plan and all citizens should have the opportunity to be informed of whatever construction is being contemplated.”
- “I am very concerned about the precedent being established by allowing the breakwater. Why would it be allowed for this property and refused for any and all subsequent requests? Surely that is precisely what zoning regulations are set out to prevent.”
- “We neighbours are concerned about the effect of construction of a breakwater may have on the foreshore generally (including impacts on birds, otters, and other wildlife with which we share the foreshore), and the effect which a breakwater may have on other waterfront properties on Higson.”
- “I see that the Hodges are ‘proposing to replace the existing sea wall and implement a green shore approach’. It is difficult to know what this means. If they are proposing to remove the sea wall at 217 [Higson] and protect the property with the breakwater, the breakwater would need to be very large and strategically placed. Winter storms, sometimes coinciding with king tides, blow mostly from the south-east and bring rough waves crashing in. They can, of course, come from the north with stormy waves too. It is hard to see how the breakwater, as sketched, could be effective given the different tide and water conditions at the site.”
- “I have lived at 225 Higson Crescent for twenty (20) years and have experienced the ferocity of the ocean, and unless you have experienced it, you cannot imagine the power created by ocean storms. I have tried the ‘green shore approach’ and all the hard work vanished in the first good storm.”
- “Have any studies been obtained regarding the environmental impact of this extraordinary foreshore construction scheme? A statement that it is ‘green’ does not make it so.”
- “The Hodges are perhaps unaware of the severity of these conditions as they have not resided at the property other than two or three week stays during the summer months. The property is rented out to a mixture of long and short term renters during the rest of the year.”
- “A major worry is that in addition to damaging the foreshore, the breakwater may direct waves and water away from 217 [Higson] and towards neighbouring properties, causing erosion and other damage. Has a report from an independent hydraulic engineer been obtained which addresses the impact of the proposed breakwater on the foreshore and on nearby properties?”
- “It would appear that the Hodges (the applicants) also have applied to construct some form of breakwater on the intertidal zone. I believe such a project may seriously affect adjacent properties. Who will be liable in the event of damage occurring to adjacent properties caused by this unnatural breakwater?”
- “This proposal is, at minimum, a disruption to the natural beach that we all see and enjoy and, at worst, a threat to our investment.”
And, finally:
- “I understand that this project would require approval by provincial and federal governments and that the application may well stall out at that point.”
- “In conclusion, we would ask Council to recommend a revision to the plans which would follow the 15 metre waterfront setback and would require a shorter height variance than is currently applied for, and is more in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood.”
- “I would respectfully request that when decisions are made by Council and staff that the concerns of long-time residents of a community are given strong consideration.”
- “There is no undue hardship [to the applicant] in this application of variance. The applicant is seeking that which is not normally permitted. The applicant is free to change their plans to comply with local by-laws. The applicant is clearly aware of the permitted building envelope and should only be encouraged to construct within those boundaries. Further, the applicant should be encouraged to submit a product in keeping with the neighbourhood character.”